Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020) • Hacker News Board

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#231

Post by slg » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #205

slg wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People on HN and in this thread in particular have such a one sided view of this issue. For some reason people here only think the left is attacking free speech when the truth is that free speech is under attack from both the left and right. One of those two has been much more effective translating these attacks into laws which I would expect to be the most concerning for proponents of free speech and yet it is alway…

Which laws have passed that restrict speech?

Two examples that come to mind:

"In a Blow to Free Speech, Texas’ Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed Pending Appeal"[1]

"A federal judge blocks part of Florida's 'STOP WOKE' Act on the grounds it violates business free speech rights" [2]

[1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas...

[2] - https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-...

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#232

Post by throwawayacc2 » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #180

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me, how would you respond to a fanatical preacher telling you to go read the scriptures? Would you do it? Would you call him outright insane? Would you dismiss him and move on? Genuine question, I am honestly curious.

Sorry, I'm not seeing the relevance to my points. Are you sure you meant to reply to me?

Yes, I am sure I meant to reply to you.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#233

Post by naasking » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #149

naasking wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note, for example, the way that Kiwi Farms was waving the free speech banner. You'll see the same thing being done by people who advocate for exterminating Jews and returning Black people to slavery. You fight bad ideas with better ideas. The ACLU used to champion free speech in precisely this way before the internet, as they fought for the rights of Nazis to hold marches. For Kiwi Farms specifically, this is a law…

> You fight bad ideas with better ideas. This does not in fact work for hate. If you think you can prove otherwise, give it a go. But take a look at the rise of bad ideas over the last 30 years. Take a look at how dis- and mis-information have caused so much harm. > That's a false choice. No, it's not. Because people who are subject to sufficient online hate will leave the platform or never sign up. And it doesn't ha…

> This does not in fact work for hate.

Then how did Daryl Davis succeed in convincing hundreds of KKK members to renounce their hate? How did the Black Panthers and the KKK unite to fight for a common cause, culminating in those KKK members also renouncing their hate?

> But take a look at the rise of bad ideas over the last 30 years.

What rise? Prove there's been a rise that's unusual in historic terms. Ideas trend and fade. 30-40 years ago we had plenty of left wing terrorism from the eco activists. Recently there was a rise in right-wing narratives, and that too will fade.

> Take a look at how dis- and mis-information have caused so much harm.

What harm? Be specific. If you mean medical misinformation around COVID, I can very easily demonstrate to you that this actually followed from decades of prior misinformation from journalists and poor scientific practices, and from the failures of various government institutions which led to erosion of public trust, and arguably also led to Trump's election as president.

Blaming the "misinformation" is a convenient scapegoat that doesn't actually address the underlying issues, and in the meantime sets a dangerous precedent that will and already has been abused to silence those speak truth to power.

> Because people who are subject to sufficient online hate will leave the platform or never sign up.

They will sign up if there's value on that platform. If Twitter is where social conversations are happening, where people can directly petition their elected representatives or where they can join social movements and drive change, they will join.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#234

Post by LudwigNagasena » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #198

MichaelCollins wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? The way it works is: "Sure I support free speech, but saying X is not free speech and saying it should be against the law because its offensive and might incite violence or something." If you object, they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance.

> they trot out Popper quotes about tolerating intolerance. Yup, that's me. What's wrong with that according to you? If your expression is promoting violence, especially violence against a vulnerable group (children, minorities, I'd say even animals), I'm okay with drawing up laws against such things. Thereby reducing freedom of expression. Advertising for instance. If every building/land owner or municipality could…

Why would you say that you support freedom of speech?

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#235

Post by bheadmaster » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

jimbob45 wrote: post #178

gruez wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? That sounds like the logic behind "free speech zones". Yeah, we're not blocking protests, or arresting legal protesters. You just have to protest in a designated area 5 miles away where it won't disrupt everyone.

There has to be some reason behind protesting or we end up wasting resources arresting everyone and trying to fight over who gets to protest in prime space at prime time. It’s better for everyone if we’re civilized about it.

> There has to be some reason behind protesting or we end up wasting resources arresting everyone and trying to fight over who gets to protest in prime space at prime time.

The fact that there are people out there wasting their own time and their own resources standing on the street for days and protesting is proof enough that there is something wrong. Why would anyone protest if there wasn't something (that they thought was) seriously wrong going on?

> It’s better for everyone if we’re civilized about it.

It's certainly better for the status quo, because "civilized" protest actually requires the other side to want to change things. In reality, it often does not, and "civilized" protests end up being exercises in futility. That's why protests happen - it's a form of pressure.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#236

Post by weberer » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

idlewords wrote: post #67

It's worth digging into the methodology here: the study participants were found through Mechanical Turk, and the proxy for cognitive ability is a vocabulary quiz. You can just as well use this study to show that the kind of highly educated people whose circumstances are dire enough they have to work for pennies an hour have been socialized into giving correct answers about questions pertaining to freedom of speech.

>It's worth digging into the methodology here: the study participants were found through Mechanical Turk

That seems to be most studies these days. And 10 years ago it was mostly "we've recruited 200 students from [university performing the study]" and people complained about that too. And if you do a phone survey, then its "you're biasing toward the people who pick up calls from unknown numbers". There's always going to be some sort of sampling bias, and this study doesn't seem to be any sort of special outlier.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#237

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

marcopolo3333 wrote: post #65

illuminerdy wrote: post #29

I can see how their conclusions play out in real life. One of the common threads I've noticed across many people when trying to explain why defending freedom of speech, and the free and open exchange of ideas in general, is that they're not just defending some "right-wing" person's rights, they're actually defending their own rights. Because the same tactics and rationales that are being used to suppress and silence…

A common thread I see is a lot is people conflating freedom of speech and having a platform (more specifically an online one). Forcing private entities to host speech they don't want to goes against what I define as freedom of speech. Everyone should be entitled to speak and have their own ideas, no individual or company should be force to spread them.

[deleted]

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#238

Post by Tranny_bad » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #222

slavik81 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionar…

Persuasive and well written. It certainly seems applicable for example to the anticommunist fervor that the US dealt with in decades past for example. On the other hand that passage seems uniquely inapplicable to our modern times which are more free of societal oppression than almost any time previously. Neonazis, communists, would be anarchists, followers of 1000 cults and political groups many mutually offensive to…

No post body was provided.

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#239

Post by hotpotamus » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

illuminerdy wrote: post #113

Twistyfiasco wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for awhile there was lots of talk about CRT. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/02/texas-critical-race-...

Well, it's already a well-established principle that, when you take taxpayer money from the government, the government gets to attach conditions to it as they see fit. That's not a violation of any individual rights.

I'd say that's a well-unestablished principle now.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines...

Re: Cognitive ability is related to supporting freedom of speech (2020)

#240

Post by 29083011397778 » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

Tenobrus wrote: post #151

cortesoft wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not heard any group calling for free speech to be blocked. Who is calling for people to be arrested for what they say? Or to be blocked from being able to say it out loud? I think what you mean is that people are calling for internet platforms to kick out certain groups. This is in no way a call against freedom of speech. I am not sure why people suddenly believe that being for 'free speech' means that other p…

You're talking the US first amendment and how freedom of speech relates to governments, but that's only a limited subset of the general concept of free speech. Obviously discussions around platforms involve more complexity, but for example if AT&T started refusing to send my texts based on what kinds of ideas I was arguing for then this is a serious attempt to limit speech and discussion which is morally incorrect, r…

Looking back, I've had issues with Facebook not sending some messages. One attempt with a torrent site, and one sending a .exe file. The difference with your example is AT&T is America-only, while Facebook is a behemoth that enforces their morals world-wide.

Can .exe files be dangerous? Yes. So inform or warn users, instead of silently failing.